Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age | Hacker News Reader

Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age

nautil.us

48 pointsdnetesn54 comments

I believe there was a story a few years back about someone who developed a new technique for aging whiskey which was supposed to be much faster but the chemically identical (or very similar) to longer barrel aging. I don't think it's as simple as the small barrel aging they mention, because it was more recent and was getting a lot of attention.

Edit: Found it[1], although it's rum, not whiskey. Thanks to etherealmachine for pointing me in the right direction.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9369387

The stakes are too high for this problem to be unsolved. People can accelerate the aging of wine as a chemical process. With billions on the line, people will figure it out for Whiskey too.

This will dramatically bring down the cost of whiskey too. First comes from simply increasing the supply. More importantly, most of the cost of whiskey is time. If I spend $5 today making a bottle of 18 year whiskey, and I have a cost of capital of 6% higher than inflation, then I'll need to sell it at $14.27 (5*1.06^18) inflation adjusted just to break even.

Even if the result is effectively the same, won't there still be a place for a small number of high-end distilleries that age things naturally? The ridiculous duration is part of the appeal of the product, and something that (some) consumers want to signal, right?

Buffalo Trace will probably never change its ways; they have been in constant operation for over 120 years I belive (even through prohibition, selling "medicinal" whiskey). And their products are consistently fantastic.

But age as a signifer of quality is archaic, as distillers have gotten much smarter about how to make a good product rather than just letting things go for a long time and hope for the best. Honestly if you're buying a bourbon older than 10 years you're overpaying for diminishing returns. Most of the best bourbons/american whiskeys I have had are right around the $40-$70 range, and most don't mention age. I feel similarly for scotch but thats far trickier territory.

Source: I worked three years in an upper-scale wine and spirits shop.

Interesting claim. I don't drink bourbon, Scotch is my preference. The difference between Highland Park 12y and 18y is almost night and day. They're both lovely, but 18y is smoother and much more complex, with far more taste of the oak. 25y is almost spicy, and most definitely a sipping whisky that you want to last.

It can be done without extreme age though. Two of my absolute favorite whiskeys are Aberlour A'bunadh and Ardbeg Uigedail. Both are non-age-stated and consist of a blend of spirits, a majority under 10 years old - but they're both fantastic whiskys, and both cheaper than just about any 15yr old, much less an 18. Of course, both are bottled at full cask strength or near it, which certainly helps.

I tasted the A'bunadh at the distillery alongside the 16, and while the no-age-statement stuff is fine, it doesn't really compare to the sherry cask stuff. I'm suspicious of no-age whiskey.

Not sure what you mean by that? A'bunadh is 100% sherry aged.

I thought it was aged in bourbon and finished in sherry. Either way, the 16 sherry cask was noticeably better.

Well, here's two things that I don't think has been addressed in this thread yet:

1) Virtually all commercially-produced liquor that has a flavor and isn't single cask is blended. The no-age-label is blended, the 16 is blended. The difference is in what they're blended with and how much.

2) Every study done of wine tasting involving brain scans shows that expectation modifies how taste is interpreted. So yes, to you, it totally did taste better, but not because it necessarily was better, from an objective standpoint. And at a certain level that'll be based purely on personal preference anyway.

That's ridiculous. The difference between a strong sherry finish and a weak one is unmistakeable. It's like saying my brain is playing tricks on me when I say I can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

Put the A'bunadh and the 16 Sherry in front of me blindfolded. I'll identify them every time.

People who make this wine comparison presumably don't drink much whiskey.

They're both still single malts, so a long way from tosh like Johnny Walker blends which are awful even with a stated age. :)

I've only tried the Ardbeg, and it's nice enough, but I'd call it a bit rough round the edges. Like tptacek, I'm wary of no-age, but if they get good enough to pass for long age complexity but bring them into my price range...

My impression has always been that drinking aged whisky was more about signalling (both financial status and knowledge and taste), including in the largest markets (France, etc.). Same reason people still wear suits and Goodyear-welted leather shoes for work. So there'll always be a large demand for aged stuff. If you just want to get drunk, vodka is better for hangovers and a lot cheaper. For example, a liquor trader here told me Indonesia is really into Chivas 18 year old, which is by far his largest export there.

That being said, economics have made it happen already: there have been no age statements on the "basic" offering from all mass market Japanese single malts (Yamazaki, Yoichi, Taketsuru...) for a few years now because the vastly increased demand effectively emptied the stock of the 10-12 year old stuff that was previously the default. I also get the feeling that a lot of Scottish houses are cutting their product with stuff that meets the age requirement for labelling but is not as good as what their products were made of 10-15 years ago.

In terms of taste, I think the "fast aged" stuff is a different product. Younger whiskies have a very different flavour profile (not necessarily inferior - try a Port Charlotte PC5-7). Can it become a new market segment, certainly - in fact it already has (e.g. Laphroaig Quarter Cask mentioned elsewhere in this thread). Replace, I'm less sure.

I'm pretty sure people still buy those things because they see the value in investing money in quality products, not to signal something. Signaling is a consequence here, not a purpose.

Different whisky products have different markets. There are special limited edition releases of Chivas that are only sold in Asia, for example. Same for Johnny Walker, and many other popular brands. India is crazy for Scotch, but most of its whisky is made of 90% blended neutral spirits and 10% malt whisky. It was only in the past 10 years that they produced their own, completely Indian, single malt whiskys, which are pretty good by the way.

All sorts of whisky brands have been switching to No Age Specified labels for years. Eventually almost all of them will be, partly to avoid shortages, and partly to help consumers try more products from the same brand, and to fight the idea that older = better. And "as good" scotch is relative; they have always blended spirits to get the right flavor profile regardless of age statement, and they continue to do so.

> I'm pretty sure people still buy those things because they see the value in investing money in quality products, not to signal something. Signaling is a consequence here, not a purpose.

Rather than write up my position on this, I will Defer To Authority and post this excellent Quora answer on signalling and its relationship with quality: https://www.quora.com/Why-would-anyone-buy-a-Rolex-watch/ans... (although I disagree on her premise that there is no objective difference in quality, especially when it comes to wine, but then I am a card carrying Frenchman so hardly unbiased). I particularly liked the ending:

> Of course, none of this applies to me. I honestly love Van Gogh paintings, not because it signals good taste within my social circle, but because they're intrinsically beautiful.

Well, I love my Port Ellen, Karuisawa and Mortlach and I would look forward to adding Urushi Seikos or Chanel's Cuir de Russie (vintage, of course) to my collections. For their intrinsic qualities, naturally. Unfortunately, my wife does not see those intrinsic qualities as clearly as I do, so my plans have been put on hold for the moment (and, probably, all future moments).

You compared "aged whisky", "goodyear-welted shoes" and "suits" to things like Rolex watches, on the basis that they are all about signaling.

This is like saying, because I prefer an all-wheel-drive car, it is for the same reason as buying a Ferrari, because who could possibly need a an all-wheel-drive car?

Other than people who drive in the snow.

Suits are warm and durable and fashionable, goodyear-welted shoes will last forever, be comfortable and weather-resistant, and aged whisky tastes different than non-aged whisky. You buy these generic categories of products for a practical reason. If you want to pay for the one that costs 10 times more than the others, that is signaling.

I was going to give Johnny Walker as an example, but here's a better one: George Dickel Rye. It's fantastic, it's $26, and nobody knows it exists. It's comparable to a nice scotch. So why don't people drink this instead of scotch? Because scotch has things this doesn't, and they're willing to pay whatever it costs to get it. At a bar, though, I always buy the Dickel if it's available, because you can't beat the value.

That's not quite my argument. It's subtler than that: 1. the world is not univariate and there is rarely one variable that explains 90% of the variation; 2. each user has a different utility function and it is rare to find one that applies to all aka "objective quality".

What I am arguing is that one variable that DOES often matter is signalling - including the subtle signalling for taste that is linked to high social status, and that can be found in e.g. spotting the 1-inch long straight boutonniere and matt buttons that signal a Savile Row tailor. And sometimes the pure signalling in itself, the completely intangible value created by a marketing department, becomes as "real" as any of the intrinsic qualities of the product.

Objectively, you do not need these things. A Ferrari is ultimately just a car. To some people the utility is getting from A to B, and they have a Bentley cos that's what people in their social circles do. Others truly love a well crafted product and value the Ferrari for the driving experience. Others yet have a different utility function, like a race driver who told me he did not enjoy driving the "borrowed" Lamborghini his friend lent him for a few track days, because his Evo had better visibility and turned much better, even if the Lambo was better in straight lines. And then you get the signalling where the Lambo is bought for its price tag in a flashy colour a la Entourage agent whatever his name was. I even remember a hedge fund manager who whilst he was interviewing me proudly showed me his F430 racing photos and cups.

(was based on original comment that GL > BL) Blue Label is an excellent choice when another company is footing the bill at an open bar, and I know a lot of people who would be genuinely pleased if you served them a shot of Blue Label after hosting them for dinner. They are rarely whisky enthusiasts, but there is genuine utility in the happiness that you give them in the perceived value that has been created by Diageo's marketing department around the brand. These intangible things become, in my experience, increasingly important the closer you get to sales.

You should try Bulleit Rye. It's top notch and not very expensive. All of Bulleit's whiskeys are good. Their standard whiskey is a bit sweet but still has good flavor. Great for an old fashioned. Their Frontier is my favorite though.

I find most bourbon to have a cough medicine aftertaste, and Bulleit Rye just tastes like a spicy Bulleit, so i'm not a fan. George Dickel Rye tastes like someone took a Macallan and added spice.

I think fast aging will start to taste more and more like the defaults. There are ways to chemically alter wine to taste aged. The finest French chateaus turn their noses up on it, but most people can't tell the difference in a blind taste test.

I disagree with the idea that drinking aged whisky is necessarily about signalling, if that were the case then people would only drink it in social situations, and I do not.

If fast aging manages to get the same taste in less time (surely the definition of fast aging) and lead to cheaper whiskies with the same taste, then I will definitely buy them.

Anyway Scotch whisky is interesting because the supply of barley is limited. It is used in beer production as well, and is sourced from several countries that also produce lots of beer, and harvests sometimes fail. Once turned into malt whisky, it is used for two different products -- as an ingredient of blend whiskies (grain whisky can be produced in larger quantities, but is worth much less by itself than when blended with malt whisky) or aged a long time to be sold as single malt whisky.

This means that while single malts Scotch is really profitable, the supply will always be limited. And that probably won't change much if the aging process is sped up, so prices probably won't go down that much.

Eh. Price will go up to match demand, the market will clear.

Meanwhile, turnaround time on a serviceable corn whiskey is less than thirty days from cob to bottle. No one is going to die for lack of drink.

Whole story is a bunch of hype.

Wait, what serviceable 30 day whiskey are you referring to? What's the service model?

I can't from this whether you are asking an honest question or if you can't google "define:serviceable", or can't google "corn whiskey" and see the first result in either case.

I'm suggesting that there probably is a product called "30 day old corn whiskey" and that it probably isn't very good.

You are entitled to that opinion, but you've missed the point entirely.

Whiskey fresh out of the still ("white dog") is pretty rough. Whiskey with 30 days of attentive oaking isn't awful (I'll happily get fucked up on it), 90 days will be pretty decent.

I wonder if you can put the whiskey in some non-reacting container, and dump the oak inside of it.

This way, the exposed surface of the wood is twice as much (since both sides touch the whiskey), reducing the amount of oak needed.

I had a bottle of Renegade, a 100% malted barley distilled in steel barrels with white oak chips for 60 days. It was.... weird, to say the least. Confusing. I don't usually drink malt whiskey other than scotch, so that could have just been totally new to me, but I wasn't a big fan.

Here is a free tip to rapid agrers - add sunlight. Putting a bottle of good stuff in the sun for the summer destroys it. But it smooths out the rough stuff a lot. Source - forgot some bottles of cheap scotch on the balcony in my college days.

I do like bourbon, but not nearly as much as rye. There have been a number of new American ryes in the last decade. I'm not going to tell you my favorites, though. I don't want the price to go up.

That's ok. Most of them are interchangeable MGP whiskeys anyways, and will always have some lower-priced lesser-known entirely-equivalent cousins.

True enough. I've sometimes thought about distilling my own as an experiment. It takes a long time to find out the results, though, and you're in constant danger from the revenuers.

Buying whiskey in Canada is often a exercise in frustration, with the provincial monopolies cranking the prices into the stratosphere. But we do have a fair number of good ryes that have popped up of late. Even the big brands like Canadian Club have started to offer up more real rye options (not all Canadian whiskies are made from rye, contrary to what some may think).

"During the aging process, changes in heat and pressure push and pull the alcohol in and out of the wood. There is a constant back-and-forth between aldehyde and acid, until the acids accumulate en masse and turn permanently into esters, adding complex character and deep flavors."

This quote I found interesting. It would seem an important ingredient in making whisky is a locale with reasonably varied weather. I wonder if anyone has tried the equivalent of putting their whisky barrels in a giant iron lung? Pushing and pulling the whisky in and out of the wood more often might speed up the aging process.

"When it opened in 2003, Tuthilltown started experimenting with accelerating the maturation of single malt, rye, and bourbon whiskeys by letting the alcohol settle in 2- to 5-gallon oak barrels, instead of the industry-standard 53- to 55-gallon oak casks, increasing the alcohol-to-barrel-surface ratio. The small barrels sped up aging significantly; we could get to market in months, instead of years,” says Tuthilltown co-owner Ralph Erenzo"

Laphroaig takes 5-year old whisky and then ages it in "quarter casks" (~80 L or 20 gallons) for several months. The result is actually pretty tasty for a relatively cheap scotch. (Warning: must like Islay's or this one will slay you). Their 10-year old bottling is a bit nicer, but almost twice the price.

It's worth noting that more years in the barrel doesn't always improve a whisky. Islay's tend to lose their famous medicinal character if aged for too long, and other scotches often just get musty. I once had a 30-year old bottling of a rye that tasted like licking a steel drum. I'm not sure what went wrong there. Unlike many other things, there isn't so much a point of diminishing returns, but rather, a point after which a whisky will start getting worse, even as the prices continue to grow exponentially.

"Bourbon made in less than a year may be financially savvy, but most bourbon experts say it falls short on taste. “I don’t think new methods are producing whiskey that is comparable,” Bryson says. “Some accelerated whiskeys don’t feel right. They feel too thin; they don’t have the proper ‘roundness.’ ”

I'd have to do a double blind taste-test to be convinced this is true. Are whisky aficionados really more accurate than wine tasters, who famously aren't good at telling what they're drinking at all? I'm certain I could tell an Islay from a Rye or a Speyside, but could I tell a 5-year-old Bourbon from an 8-year-old Bourbon made by the same distiller if they were messing about with these accelerated aging methods?

Aging issues aside, it will be interesting to see how consumer tastes evolve over the coming decades. Scotch has come on big in the last couple of decades and demand for Bourbon is also exploding. Rye (especially Canadian Rye) remains a bit of a niche drink though, but public interest seems to be picking up. Last year, Jim Murray declared the #1 new whisky in the world to be Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye, which is a good rye for the price, but nothing particularly special. There are several Canadian Rye producers that could easily produce higher end bottlings if the market demand was there, and it does seem to be developing. It would be a fine day indeed if Alberta Premium started regularly producing 20-30 year-old bottlings instead of tricking an extremely limited bottling out every 5 years.

On your first point: people have known about this for a long time. Rum, for instance, is mostly produced in warmer climates, and the aging process is 2x to 5x faster. A 3 year rum tastes like a 10 year whiskey. And indeed, Buffalo Trace ages its Blanton's brand whiskey at the top of a meal rickhouse, where it can get the most exposure to the shifting temperatures of the natural world. (it pays off, it is one of the best bourbons you can get for $60 or even more).

Second: Scotch is aged very differently from bourbon, mostly regarding the barrel restrictions bourbon has (new charred american oak, only). A number of scotch distilleries actually buy barrels off of bourbon distilleries after the casks have been used. Thats also why bourbon is almost always much sweeter in profile than scotch or other whiskies. (Also Laphroaig is delicious).

It'd be fascinating if a few barrels of Laphroaig were sent someplace warm, but equally as coastal for aging to see how it changes the tastes.

Too much effort and money, probably, especially since they have a good spot in the market right now.

However, Jefferson's Ocean [1] whiskey is an experiment where Jefferson's took 68 bourbons aged 6-8 years, blended them together, threw the barrels onto a ship, and sent it on a 6 month sea voyage. Apparently, it yielded some interesting, tasty bourbon. I haven't had it, I havent even seen it in person. But be on the look out, i guess.

[1] http://thewhiskeyjug.com/bourbon-whiskey/jeffersons-ocean-ag...

I've had it. It's amazing and well worth the price. Hell, well worth a significantly higher price.